Quiet-eye training, perceived control and performing under pressure Greg Wood * , Mark R. Wilson College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK article info Article history: Received 13 February 2012 Received in revised form 22 April 2012 Accepted 9 May 2012 Available online 18 May 2012 Keywords: Visual attention Contingency Competence Choking Penalty kicks Anxiety abstract Objectives: While previous studies have explored how quiet-eye (QE) training optimizes objective (visual attention) control in aiming tasks, this study examined whether QE training influences perceived (psychological) control and how changes in control beliefs correspond to changes in anxiety, visual attention and performance under pressure. Methods: Two groups of ten experienced soccer penalty takers followed either a QE training program or a practice program where penalty kicks were practiced with no instruction. Measurements of anxiety, gaze, performance and perceived control were recorded over baseline, retention and a competitive, ‘shoot-out’ transfer condition. Results: Not only did the QE training optimize aiming behavior and performance, but these changes in visual attention were mirrored in changes in control beliefs. QE participants significantly reduced their perceptions of outcome uncertainty (contingency) and increased their perceptions of shooting ability (competence) and ability to score and cope with the pressure (control), compared to practice partici- pants. Furthermore, there was an overall and significant relationship between high perceptions of control beliefs and aiming behavior. Specifically, those participants with high control beliefs were more likely to aim optimally and further from the goalkeeper, whereas participants with low control beliefs experi- enced suboptimal and more centralized aiming behavior. Conclusion: These findings are the first to highlight the relationship between control beliefs, anxiety and attentional control in sport and offer further explanations regarding the benefits of QE training for performance under pressure. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. “Penalties are a lottery. I remember some very important players that didn’t take penalties because they didn’t feel sure they would score” eFabio Capello (Ex-England Soccer Team Manager) [Capello, 2009] The influence that anxiety exerts on sports performance continues to attract considerable research attention in the sport psychology literature. The consensus of such research has impli- cated a mediating role for attentional disruptions, with some researchers assessing these disruptions using objective measures of visual attention (see Janelle, 2002; Wilson, 2008 for reviews). In order to counteract anxiety-induced disruptions to attentional control, psychologists have strived to design interventions that aim to direct attention to relevant thoughts and cues in the hope of maintaining performance (Moran, 1996; Wilson & Richards, 2011). One intervention that has received recent support is Quiet-Eye (QE) training (Vickers, 2007). The QE period, defined as the final fixation to a target before the initiation of the motor response, is a period of time that allows performers an extended duration of motor programming, while minimizing distraction from other environmental cues (Vickers, 1996). The QE has been shown to be indicative of proficient performance in a number of diverse visuo- motor skills and has therefore been reported as an objective measure of attentional control for visuomotor tasks (see Mann, Williams, Ward, & Janelle, 2007; Vickers, 2007 for reviews). QE training involves teaching performers this optimal attentional control (where and when to fixate), embedded within a pre-performance routine (PPR; Wilson & Richards, 2011). Recent research has revealed that QE-trained performers are less likely to choke under pressure than performers taught a PPR focusing on accurate motor control, irre- spective of whether performers have just learned the skill (Vine & Wilson, 2010, 2011), or are already very experienced (Causer, Holmes, & Williams, 2011; Vine, Moore, & Wilson, 2011). Despite the increasing evidence in support of the efficacy of QE training, little is known about the precise mechanisms by which performance is maintained when performers are anxious (Vine * Corresponding author. Richards Building, University of Exeter, St Luke’s Campus, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK. Tel.: þ44 1392 72 2891; fax: þ44 1392 72 4726. E-mail address: gw230@ex.ac.uk (G. Wood). Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Psychology of Sport and Exercise journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport 1469-0292/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.05.003 Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 721e728